[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [SPAM] Re: (PR#7021) fighting ICS

["raven@xxxxxxxxx" <raven@xxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=7021 >


>>I think a single server option for turning all the 
>>wonders on or off would be great.
>>    
>>
>Multiplayer Civ is a completely different game.  There, you either like the 
>"build the Wonders first" game mechanic or you don't.  Generally when someone 
>beats you to creating Wonder A, you finish Wonder B instead.  If you don't 
>like building Wonders at all, and wish nobody would ever do that... well, you 
>either need a Wonder-disruption strategy, or a server switch like you 
>suggested.
>  
>
>>Also, we'd need to 
>>get rid of the ability to just grow out, boost your lux in 
>>Rep/Dem and suddenly 4x your population.
>>    
>>
>
>It's not a realistic game feature... but it's definitely more fun than sitting 
>around waiting forever for cities to get bigger.  This particular game 
>mechanic solves certain problems of tedium, it makes Largepox possible.  Are 
>you certain you want to dispense with it just because it isn't realistic?
>
>  
>
Well, let me clarify: My reasons for both of these ideas are game 
balancing more than a concern for realism.  At this point there's a lot 
of ways in freeciv to leapfrog ahead drastically, and more often than 
not, the person who leap-frogs first gets all the other big bonuses they 
want, because they're already ahead.  It seems to me that this is part 
of why games very rarely last through the whole timeline, because it's 
so clear who's going to win so early on.  So what I'm getting at with 
these ideas, is to make fewer drastic variables, which will hopefully 
keep competition tighter through the whole game.  My excitement at 
getting a wonder or exploding my population and suddenly BAM it's 
endyear without anything really happening because it's a for-gone 
conclusion what will happen, is short lived.  I would enjoy it more if 
the games tended to be tight competition all the way through, and were 
won with tactically skilled warfare rather than technologically 
unbalanced genocide, as is so often the case in freeciv.

>Realistically, if a nation spends its national treasury on Luxuries, you're 
>really talking about >the rich and powerful lining their own pockets.  You 
>shouldn't be getting UberSweden from this.  >You should be getting the Roman 
>Empire, Louis XVII, and the typical Third World junta.  Maybe this >is a 
>problem of definitions.  Is the budget for "Luxuries" or for "Social Services?"

Well, considering the population boost, maybe they're spending it all on 
hosting contraceptive-free raves or something.  :-P  But yeah, that's an 
interesting thought.

--Zack